I think this community is one that should be very straightforward. It is a community to post about lemmy apps, tools, features, comparisons, etc. It’s also a valuable space where app creators and users can interact. This makes it a special place where creators can share best practices with one another and users can share their appreciation and discuss feature requests.

I like lemmy. I like lemmy apps. That’s why I’m here. I appreciate the many different approaches that developers take to give users a positive experience, and I think this community is a neat part of that positive experience.

Okay, the elephant in the room: we have come through a challenge with a moderator who was not a good fit for this community. They approached it with a particular agenda, and were more hands-on than this community warrants. That user has since closed their account and removed many of their posts. Some of those posts were helpful, and I trust that members of this community will recreate the content that was valuable. I also want to express appreciation for the many active members of this community who have recently shared their thoughts about what this community could look like in the future, and who spoke up about restoring stability to the community. I also want to acknowledge @[email protected] for stepping in and providing a bridge as an admin.

In a community like this, a moderator (or team) should be maintaining of stability and civility while remaining otherwise invisible. My only agenda is to be consistent and predictable; open and transparent communication is key.

So, that being said, Please feel free to share any meta thoughts, questions, or requests in this thread. Otherwise, lets get back to the interesting part of exploring the different Lemmy Apps and Tools!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    710 months ago

    Hi and thank you! 🙏 This community needs an understanding mod, the other was was very opinionated, as you said they tried to superimpose their opinion on what the community should look like.

    Some principles could be agreed upon to a certain degree (e.g. stressing the open source/closed source distinction) some other were rather questionable (e.g. their aversion to each and every single punctuation mark).